Principal Investigator(s):Van Vleet, Russell K., University of Utah, Graduate School of Social Work; Davis, Matthew J., University of Utah, Graduate School of Social Work; DeWitt, John, University of Utah, Graduate School of Social Work; Brynes, Edward C., University of Utah, Graduate School of Social Work; Barusch, Amanda, University of Utah, Graduate School of Social Work

Summary:

This study was an evaluation of changes initiated by the
State of Utah to reduce youth crime: a program of early intervention
comprised of Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and a new intermediate
sanction called State Supervision. Together, the Sentencing Guidelines
and State Supervision sanction were designed to bring about a
reduction in juvenile recidivism rates and subsequently reduce the
number of offenders placed out of the home in the custody of the
Division of Youth Corrections by 5 ... (more info)

This study was an evaluation of changes initiated by the
State of Utah to reduce youth crime: a program of early intervention
comprised of Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and a new intermediate
sanction called State Supervision. Together, the Sentencing Guidelines
and State Supervision sanction were designed to bring about a
reduction in juvenile recidivism rates and subsequently reduce the
number of offenders placed out of the home in the custody of the
Division of Youth Corrections by 5 percent. Researchers combined
quantitative measures of sentencing guidelines compliance and
recidivism rates with qualitative interviews of juvenile justice
system personnel and youth offenders. Data were gathered on all
offenders receiving a sentence to probation for the first time from
January to June during 1996 and 1999, enabling a comparison of
offenders before and after program implementation (Part 1, Juvenile
Information System Data). Part 1 data include demographic data, prior
charges, age at start of probation, detention use, reoffense, and
commitment to Youth Corrections. Interviews with 168 court and
corrections personnel were conducted in two interview rounds, from
June to December 1999, and again from July to September 2000,
soliciting their views of the sentencing guidelines, state
supervision, and probation (Parts 2-3, Juvenile Justice System
Personnel Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). Interviews with 229 youth
offenders obtained information on their involvement with and views of
the sentencing guidelines, state supervision, and probation during a
single interview in either the first or second round (Parts 4-5, Youth
Offender Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). A random sample of paper case
files for pre- and post-guideline offenders was selected to analyze
changes in contact and interventions provided (Part 6, Youth Offender
Case File Analysis). These files were examined for documentation of
contact frequency and type with offenders and their families and the
number and types of programs used.

A downloadable version of data for this study is available however, certain identifying information in the downloadable version may have been masked or edited to protect respondent privacy. Additional data not included in the downloadable version are available in a restricted version of this data collection. For more information about the differences between the downloadable data and the restricted data for this study, please refer to the codebook notes section of the PDF codebook. Users interested in obtaining restricted data must complete and sign a Restricted Data Use Agreement, describe the research project and data protection plan, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Universe:
Youth offenders and juvenile justice system personnel in
the state of Utah from 1996-2000.

Data Types:
survey data, and administrative records data

Data Collection Notes:

(1) Due to the high number of youth offender case
files that could not be found and the low number of files obtained
that contained sufficient offender and family contact information, the
researchers did not conduct an analysis of the paper case
files. Self-reports from offender interviews were substituted. (2) The
user guide, codebook, and data collection instruments are provided by
ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web
site.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
This study was an evaluation of changes initiated
by the State of Utah to reduce youth crime: a program of early
intervention comprised of Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and a new
intermediate sanction called State Supervision. Utah's Juvenile
Sentencing Guidelines were an attempt by a sentencing commission to
structure juvenile court sentencing flexibly, using advisory,
offense-based guidelines that covered the continuum of sanctions
available for juvenile offenders. Policymakers designed a sanction
intended to create locally-designed, intensive service programs that
would be largely in-home efforts, with short-term out-of-home
placements in a community setting when needed. Taken together, the
Sentencing Guidelines and State Supervision sanction were designed to
bring about a reduction in juvenile recidivism rates and subsequently
to reduce the number of offenders placed out of the home in the
custody of the Division of Youth Corrections by 5 percent. The
objectives of this evaluation were to: (1) assess the ability of a
state to implement juvenile sentencing guidelines and an intermediate
sanction designed to intervene earlier in the lives of juvenile
offenders, (2) assess the effectiveness of this earlier intervention
program on reducing criminal activity and rates of commitment to Youth
Corrections, and (3) identify local approaches to the new program that
show promise.

Study Design:
Researchers combined quantitative measures of
sentencing guidelines compliance and recidivism rates with qualitative
interviews of juvenile justice system personnel and youth
offenders. Using the Juvenile Information System database, the
researchers gathered data on demographic characteristics, prior
charges, age at start of Probation, detention use, reoffense, and
commitment to Youth Corrections for all offenders receiving a sentence
to probation for the first time from January to June during 1996 and
1999, enabling a comparison of offenders before and after program
implementation (Part 1, Juvenile Information System Data). Interviews
with 168 court and corrections personnel were conducted in two
interview rounds, from June to December 1999 and from July to
September 2000, in their place of employment (Parts 2-3, Juvenile
Justice Personnel Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). All adults in the first
round were solicited for the second round in order to allow
participant feedback on results from the first round. Court and
corrections personnel interviews were typically one hour long during
Round 1 and one-half hour long during the second round. Five research
assistants conducted the interviews, two during the first round and
three during the second. The 229 offenders were interviewed once in
either the first or second round (Parts 4-5, Youth Offender
Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). Interviews with most offenders were held
at the probation office, detention center, or other placement
facility. Six offenders were interviewed in their homes. All offenders
were interviewed alone with the exception of four youths whose
parent(s) requested to be present during the interview. Offender
interviews typically lasted between 15 and 25 minutes. Offenders were
given three hours of work credit for participation. In addition, a
random sample of paper case files for pre- and post-guideline
offenders was selected to analyze changes in contact and interventions
provided (Part 6, Youth Offender Case File Analysis). These files were
examined for documentation of contact frequency and type with
offenders and their families and the number and types of programs
used.

Sample:
Purposive sampling (Miles and Huberman, 1994) was employed
to create a qualitative sample that adequately reflected the wide
range of persons involved in the new program and in each geographical
area. Study participants were chosen as follows: All permanent judges,
trial court executives, and chief probation officers in the state of
Utah were solicited to participate due to the centrality of their
contributions to the new program. All probation officers who
specialized in provision of State Supervision services and program
providers were solicited for participation to ensure a complete
description of State Supervision programs. Forty percent of all
full-time intake and probation officers in each judicial district and
assistant regional directors and case managers in each correctional
region were solicited for participation. These participants were
chosen at random from a list provided by the chief probation officer
in each court district and the central administration of the Division
of Youth Corrections, respectively. Additionally, a list of
prosecutors and defense attorneys provided by each chief probation
officer was used to randomly solicit participation from one person in
each category in each judicial district. Finally, interviews were
sought from five offenders on each participating field or State
Supervision probation officer's caseload. These offenders were
randomly chosen from a list provided by the officer. Participants were
recruited using the following protocol: The head of each agency sent a
letter to employees of the agency requesting accommodation of the
evaluation. Informed consent was obtained from all adult participants
and parents or guardians of minors. Case files for 10 percent of
offenders receiving a sentence to probation for the first time in the
first six months of 1996 (n = 87) and 1999 (n = 110) and 10 percent of
first-time State Supervision offenders in 1999 (n = 45) were selected.
Forty-three percent of files were unable to be located, resulting in a
total sample of 122 files.

Data Source:

Data were gathered from three sources: the Utah
Juvenile Information System's computerized database, interviews with
juvenile justice personnel and youth offenders on Probation and State
Supervision, and paper case files of Probation and State Supervision
offenders.

Description of Variables:
Variables in Part 1, Juvenile Information System
Data, include judicial district, rural or urban district, cohort year,
date probation began, ethnicity (white or minority), sex, age at first
offense, age at start of probation, total prior offenses, total prior
offenses by type (felony, misdemeanor, violent, sexual, drug or
alcohol, person, property, public order, and technical), days to
reoffense, whether reoffended, days to reoffense by type, committed to
Department of Youth Corrections (DYC), days to DYC commitment, one
year prior and one year follow-up offenses (total and by type), days
on probation, days in detention or observation, and days in DYC
community placement. In Parts 2-3, Juvenile Justice Personnel
Interviews Rounds 1 and 2, judges, probation officers, State
Supervision officers, youth corrections staff, program providers, and
prosecuting or defending attorneys were asked whether the sentencing
guidelines were helpful, whether others in the juvenile justice system
were aware of the sentencing guidelines and their purpose, whether
youth and their parents were aware of the guidelines and their
purpose, what areas of the guidelines were confusing or problematic,
and whether the sanctions recommended by the guidelines were overly
intrusive, appropriate, or too lenient. In Parts 4-5, Youth Offender
Interviews Rounds 1 and 2, interviewers asked youth offenders about
their familiarity with Utah's sentencing guidelines, how long they had
been on probation, whether they were on probation or State
Supervision, the frequency and types of contact with their probation
officers, which after-school/rehabiliation/counseling programs they
had participated in as part of State Supervision, which programs were
helpful and why, and what the differences were between probation and
State Supervision. In Part 6, Youth Offender Case File Analysis,
variables include probation office where the youth was interviewed,
whether the youth was on State Supervision or probation, days on
probation, contact history, family contacts, and programs the youth
was involved in as part of State Supervision.